Okay, so recent statements have made me backtrack a bit. I'm actually in total agreeance with limiting it to established PC's. It actually makes sense, character histories come into play, old grudges, deals with the devil(possibly literally). Leveling the playing field so new people can try and be King for a day is actually unfair to the established player base. By making players work in Court as a guild, working their way from through the politics and whatnot, it gives the players experience on how a noble is played(and this is a lesson that can only be learned with experience). Once they are established, then they have the understanding of what is needed of a Regent, and would be suitable to run in the campaign.
With all that being said though, we still run into the problem of options for said position. Alot of people that are Nobles don't have the time, don't wish to be the Monarch, or have someone in another guild. So it kind of puts us back to square one.
Regency Run Critique
I think it might be useful to point out here that the Regent isn't the Monarch/King/Queen. We have a Lord/Lady Regent because there already is a Queen who is too young to rule in her own right. I think that already limits the power of the Regent quite significantly: they aren't anointed, they don't sit on the throne, and they're transitory/temporary instalments for a permanent installation. Given that, I don't particularly have an issue with existing PCs running-- it would even make sense that significant, city-based political powers who've demonstrated their suitability for office would go for the spot that is almost on-par with other (less significant) government officials such as the Chancellor.
But, more generally, we do give precedence for GLship to existing PCs in other guilds. I'm not sure that Court should be any different from the Order (for example), whose amount of power is very similar.
But, more generally, we do give precedence for GLship to existing PCs in other guilds. I'm not sure that Court should be any different from the Order (for example), whose amount of power is very similar.
I agree with Geras - it wouldn't be right to change the system mid-race.
That said, I do want to look at correcting the system and giving it another go. I quite like it, though I acknowledge that it has some major flaws to address before we go again. I'd love to see ideas about how to balance the Regency Quest. I'm not keen on the suggestions to pump NPCs up with IP or faux support, though, because the numbers are icky and nothing that you'll do will give an even "history" playing field.
I do want to address something in Dice's earlier post about GL turnover. Staff actually have a policy in place that we check player activity before accepting them for GL roles, and this has been in place for a very long time - we have turned down inactive GL applications. If you type guildlist, I can see that all of the GLs currently in place fit one of these categories: 1) has been in the role, actively, for several OOC months, or 2) came into the role ICly though natural game selection, bypassing the staff application process.
It's the nature of the beast that people come and go from TI. No matter how much we like it, we're a game. Even as addictive and better than the XBox as we are, we still get shelved for IRL. People come back time and time again, which is a credit to our quality and staying power, but the frustrations that some people view that with are greeted with others as a great creative outlet and a benefit to the game. We've done what we can to take advantage and support that natural behavior rather than rally against the inevitable.
That said, I do want to look at correcting the system and giving it another go. I quite like it, though I acknowledge that it has some major flaws to address before we go again. I'd love to see ideas about how to balance the Regency Quest. I'm not keen on the suggestions to pump NPCs up with IP or faux support, though, because the numbers are icky and nothing that you'll do will give an even "history" playing field.
I do want to address something in Dice's earlier post about GL turnover. Staff actually have a policy in place that we check player activity before accepting them for GL roles, and this has been in place for a very long time - we have turned down inactive GL applications. If you type guildlist, I can see that all of the GLs currently in place fit one of these categories: 1) has been in the role, actively, for several OOC months, or 2) came into the role ICly though natural game selection, bypassing the staff application process.
It's the nature of the beast that people come and go from TI. No matter how much we like it, we're a game. Even as addictive and better than the XBox as we are, we still get shelved for IRL. People come back time and time again, which is a credit to our quality and staying power, but the frustrations that some people view that with are greeted with others as a great creative outlet and a benefit to the game. We've done what we can to take advantage and support that natural behavior rather than rally against the inevitable.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests